R v B - [2009] QDC 429

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v B [2009] QDC 429

PARTIES:

R

(Respondent)

v

B

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

DIS-00002770/09(1) (LFR MTIS-DIS-57/09)

DIVISION:

District Court

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

20 August 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

14 August 2009

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

That the interview between PCC LB and defendant B conducted at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 March 2007 be ruled inadmissible.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW (Qld) – Police powers and responsibilities – Police records of interview – Admissibility - Juvenile offenders – Voluntariness – Right to silence - Meaning of “support person” - Unfairness discretion

CASES:

Siddon v State of Western Australia [2008] WASC 100

B v R [2005] QDC 59

R v R & T [2009] QDC 425

R v E [2009] QDC 427

R v L [2009] QDC 426

R v N [2009] QDC 428

LEGISLATION:

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) ss 4; 29(1), (2); Schedule 4

Police Powers & Responsibilities Regulation Schedule 10 (Responsibilities Code) ss 36, 37, 44A

COUNSEL:

Mr M Cowen for the respondent

Mr S Lynch for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

Director for Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

This is an application by the defendant B seeking that an interview between himself and PCC LB, conducted at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 February 2007 be ruled inadmissible.

The defendant was born on 29 May 1990 (Exhibit 13B) and was therefore a “child”[1] at the time of the interview.
[1] Juvenile Justice Act 1992, s.4 & Schedule 4 (Definition of “child”).

Background

I have previously canvassed the factual background of these proceedings at some length in my ruling in respect of co-defendants R and T, delivered at the Mount Isa District Court (ex tempore) on 13 August 2009[2].
[2]R v R & T [2009] QDC 425.

It is relevant in respect of this application to repeat only that the alleged offences occurred at Mornington Island on 28 February 2007, and that P was the complainant. The defendant on this application was one of a group of male aboriginal youths alleged to have been involved in physical and sexual offences against the complainant.

The defendant B admitted during the course of the impugned interview … to being present during the offences, holding the complainant to prevent her head hitting the concrete, telling others to get condoms, telling other co-defendants that he wanted to have sex with the complainant, and warning co-defendants when the police attended.[3]

The Law

[3] See Exhibit 13B.

Voluntariness

I refer to and adopt my exposition of law in respect of voluntariness of admissions, as set out in my ruling in relation to co-defendants R and T delivered (ex tempore) at Mount Isa District Court on 13 August 2009[4].
[4]R v R & T [2009] QDC 425.

Unfairness Discretion

Similarly, I refer to and adopt my exposition of the law in respect of the unfairness discretion,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v B

Details

AGLC: R v B [2009] QDC 429
Case: [2009] QDC 429
Decision Date: 20 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v B involved a juvenile defendant, B, who was questioned by police at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 March 2007. The dispute centred on the admissibility of the interview conducted by PCC LB, focusing on the voluntariness of the defendant’s statements and the circumstances surrounding the interview. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the primary concern was whether the police had adhered to statutory requirements and whether the interview was conducted fairly.

The central legal issues revolved around the admissibility of the statements made by the defendant during the police interview. The court needed to determine whether the defendant's right to have a support person present during questioning was respected, whether the defendant understood and voluntarily waived this right, and whether the interview process was conducted in a manner that did not render the statements inadmissible. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the police complied with the statutory requirement to record the interview and whether the defendant’s right to silence was properly respected.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law to determine the meaning of "support person" under the relevant legislation. It was found that the police failed to ensure that the defendant had a support person present during the interview, which was a mandatory requirement. Furthermore, the court concluded that the defendant’s right to silence was not properly explained, and there were indications that the statements were not entirely voluntary. The court also considered the broader context of the police’s adherence to procedural fairness and the potential unfairness of admitting the statements under the circumstances presented. Given these findings, the court ruled that the interview between PCC LB and the defendant was inadmissible.

The court ordered that the interview conducted at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 March 2007 be ruled inadmissible, effectively excluding any statements made by the defendant during that interview from being used as evidence in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the interview between PCC LB and defendant B conducted at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 March 2007 be ruled inadmissible.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v B [2009] QDC 429
PARTIES:	R (Respondent) v B (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	DIS-00002770/09(1) (LFR MTIS-DIS-57/09)
DIVISION:	District Court
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Mt Isa
DELIVERED ON:	20 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:	14 August 2009
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	That the interview between PCC LB and defendant B conducted at the Mornington Island Police Station on 7 March 2007 be ruled inadmissible.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW (Qld) – Police powers and responsibilities – Police records of interview – Admissibility - Juvenile offenders – Voluntariness – Right to silence - Meaning of “support person” - Unfairness discretion
CASES:	Siddon v State of Western Australia [2008] WASC 100 B v R [2005] QDC 59 R v R & T [2009] QDC 425 R v E [2009] QDC 427 R v L [2009] QDC 426 R v N [2009] QDC 428
LEGISLATION:	Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld) ss 4; 29(1), (2); Schedule 4 Police Powers & Responsibilities Regulation Schedule 10 (Responsibilities Code) ss 36, 37, 44A
COUNSEL:	Mr M Cowen for the respondent Mr S Lynch for the applicant
SOLICITORS:	Director for Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant